Almost daily Corner bashing

So the guy who wrote the now infamous TNR diarist has come forward to accept under his real name the unhinged lashings of certain high-profile conservatives. The lashings come, of course, not because any of his critics have any concern for the truth, but because he said very plausible things about some very poorly behaved soldiers.

"Scott Thomas" now known as Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp writes:

That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

Isn't this just a bit too precious? The guy writes about how his comrades mock disfigured women, slaughter dogs and wear baby skulls as hats, but he's upset that others have called his and his comrades' character into question? Someone explain that to me.

In fact, much of the criticism has been that U.S. soldiers would have better characters than those described in his pieces. Sorry: No sale. Scot[t] Thomas Beauchamp may or may not be honest, but he's by no means a victim.

Well, Jonah, not exactly. See, what happened is that he told an apparently true story about what men sometimes do in the midst of a war, and you guys all came within an inch of libeling both him and any of the soldiers--honest soldiers--who defended him. When you suggested that our soldiers could never have committed such atrocities--that they all "would have better characters than those described in his piece"--you were very obviously wrong, and you would have been wrong even if the specific incidents described in the Diarist were untrue. And in being wrong--intentionally wrong at that--you've dragged his name into the sewer with you. Just think, for a second, about the absurdity of this sentence: "Scot[t] Thomas Beauchamp may or may not be honest, but he's by no means a victim." At some point the right decided that even true stories shouldn't be told if they're politically inconvenient in any significant way.

Also, to Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp... how well did your, um, pseudonym? actually hold up?

Update: Yglesias sez, "That's just crazy. All these people need to stop. They need to take a deep breath. They need to apologize to the people at TNR who've wasted huge amounts of time dealing with their nonsense. And they need to think a bit about the epistemic situation they're creating where information about Iraq that they don't want to hear -- even when published in a pro-war publication -- can just be immediately dismissed as fraudulent even though the misconduct it described was far, far less severe than all sorts of other well-document misconduct in Iraq."
 

Comments

[John Wilson]

"he told an APPARENTLY true story about what men sometimes do in the midst of a war". It still looks like an unverified story to me.

[dadmanly]

As above.

The reason many of us -- veterans with time in Iraq -- jumped on the TNR piece was that it didn't read as honest, details didn't fit, the "diarist" was admitting to pretty serious acts in violation of many ARs and policies, and described numerous circumstances where NCOs, officers and his fellow soldiers tolerated, ignored, or even encouraged this behavior.

If the Army really looked and acted like some fool's vision of Stripes or Apocalypse Now, who'd know the difference between a soldier telling phony stories, or a revealing look into the "daily brutalities of war in Iraq?

But that Army only exists in the imaginations of professional anti-war agitators and the deranged lunacies of martyr complex attention seekers.

As many supporters of TNR and Scott Thomas have said, soldiers can and have done some pretty cruel and brutal things. When a soldier weith a conscience, not an agenda, comes forward to report such behavior, then we can all pay attention.

This BS from some wannabee Poet punk? Who was makign crap like this up before he even got deployed? Let him explain why no one at his unit/location/fellow soldiers are willing to stand by him. The war being such a "hell" for the soldiers and all, that ought to be easy.

[dadmanly]

Further, if you learn that this jacka$$ made the stories up, or "heard them from some guys" rather than first person experiences (as he stated), does that change your attitude? Why not?

[JimPortlandOR]

dadmanly: you've made some assertions that are not linked to a source, and for me, don't merit consideration as adding to clarity:

- "This BS from some wannabee Poet punk?"

- "Who was makign [sic] crap like this up before he even got deployed?"

- "learn that this jacka$$ made the stories up, or

- "heard them from some guys" rather than first person experiences"

I couldn't tell if you were describing the soldier/author or someone else, or speculating. Your lack of sourcing makes me wonder if you too have some agenda - including whether you 'have made the stories up'.